Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Hugh Pickens writes "Science Daily reports that Homeland Security's Science and Technology Directorate's Cell-All is an initiative to equip cell phones with a sensor capable of detecting deadly chemicals. A chip costing less than a dollar would be embedded in cell phones and programmed to alert either the cell phone carrier to the presence of toxic chemicals in the air, and/or a central station that can monitor how many alerts in an area are being received. While one alert might be a false positive, hundreds would indicate the need for evacuation. 'Our goal is to create a lightweight, cost-effective, power-efficient solution,' says Stephen Dennis, Cell-All's program manager. Does this always-on surveillance mean that the govenment can track your precise whereabouts whenever it wants? On the contrary, DHS says; Cell-All will operate only on an opt-in basis and will transmit data anonymously."

One might be a false positive. Hundreds might indicate the need for evacuation.

So how is that person holding the false positive going to react? Maybe they're the first phone to realize it? Maybe they don't understand what 'false positive' means?

For personal safety issues such as a chlorine gas leak, a warning is sounded; the user can choose a vibration, noise, text message or phone call.

I'd be concerned those false positives might not be warmly received. Especially if someone in a crowded Starbucks has a phone that starts to alarm and says "Oh my god, there's chlorine gas in here!" You might be hit with some lawsuits after a few people are injured in a stampede. Contrived scenario? Maybe. But people are less than rational beings when their lives are perceived to be at stake. While academia is right on board [slashdot.org] some of the larger cities have been a little resistant [slashdot.org] toward citizen operated detectors.

Why would they need to know? It could be a passive opt-in system with no identifying information except the return from the GPS module. And rather than the Death March playing when something's sniffed out, what about it.. Does nothing? I mean, send a message that something has been possibly found, but no other indication. There's no need to get a cattle stampede going.

So, because someone has a very rare and temporary problem, we should automatically prop down for an unproven system that the originators say will work as well as antivirus software does? (yes, that's the brain-fart comparison they made). I don't think so, Clyde.

I only knew one person who couldn't detect odors. A funny story. He had a cold, and another classmate in chem got him to sniff glacial acetic acid [jtbaker.com]. He couldn't smell it (think 100x the strength of vinegar). So he sniffed deeper. And that was THAT. No sense of smell - ever.

I am surprised I got modded up. Didn't have time to read the article when I posted, but read just enough to "know" more than most people reading my comment.

I assume, if they already want to account for false positives with the aggregate data, that they account for the problems with acting on a false positive on your own. Even so, until properly addressed, the original poster's point is a real concern.

(I don't expect mods to see this, but feel free to mod my original post down).

Cell phones already can inform authorities of your position and relay audio even when supposedly "off". This is the next step (and the stupid public will not realize the truth): a chemical sensor to further enhance big brother's ability to spy on us...

It would work if cellphones communicated directly with other cellphones in the area (not via any central) and if enough of them were sensing bombs they could all ring their alarms together....but this is homeland security so a sensible proposal which cuts them out of the deal won't be considered.

Wouldn't it be convenient for the DHS to have every new cellphone giving them a call whenever it smells that its owner is handling nitrates or peroxides.

The reason for the Third Amendment is that the British forced the Colonists to to house troops and the troops acted as spies on their activities. Looks like the Fed has finally found a virtual way to get around yet another of the Bill of Rights provisions. B-b

A chip costing less than a dollar is embedded in a cell phone and programmed to either alert the cell phone carrier to the presence of toxic chemicals in the air...

Well look on the bright side, the Chinese worker who makes the chip only has to step outside of the factory and turn it on to see if it works on a wide spectrum. Of course who would be foolish enough to risk their job, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness with a complaint about a local government official being bribed into letting your employer pollute to its heart's content?

Huh? What makes anyone think that Chinese values include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Those are American values. Talk about cultural imperialism, imposing ideals on another culture! It's more like risking your family's prosperity and/or survival.

Most broad spectrum gas detection sensors generally work by heating up a strange oxide catalyst and measuring a resistance change. Not entirely unlike an O2 sensor in a car exhaust system.

You can buy a gas sensor off the shelf from boutique online stores for about $5 each, so $1 in bulk wholesale is believable, or at least possible.

The problem is power consumption. Check out a MQ-4, at a whopping 750 mW heater power. Thats probably more than the entire rest of the phone at peak. And the heater has to preheat for a minimum of 24 hours to provide good data, this is not something that "goes to sleep mode". Thats 3/4 of a watt, all day, every day. It will literally make a poor hand warmer in ones pocket.

The parts in the sensor are not cheap. The manufacturer is already highly motivated to make it as small and light as possible, which would incidentally make it low powered. At this time, thats the best "we" can do with current technology. Its not like I cherry picked the highest power unit available. However, higher power would imply bigger would imply more durable, so I'd think a cell phone model might actually be worse.

I see two options. Either no one has realized that this thing will increase the power consumption of the phone by a factor of 20 OR the sensor they're talking about is more efficient (though perhaps more limited in other ways) than the one you're talking about.

Every cell phone switches the sensor on randomly, maybe once a month for three or four hours. It doesn't switch on at all if your battery charge is less than some set amount. If you notice something 'suspicious' you have the option of switching it on manually.

'Phones communicate directly with other phones around them. If a "switched on" phone detects something, it alerts other phones and they switch on their sensors. If several other phones also sense something, all the alarms g

Every cell phone switches the sensor on randomly, maybe once a month for three or four hours.

Most heated oxide detectors give out weird results unless baked out for 24 hours, because the oxide absorbs all kinds of junk from the air when its not operating, making it look worse than it really is...

Even just 4 hours running at 200 mA is a bit less than one amp-hour which is a substantial capacity.

Now what could work, possibly, is baking out the detector whenever its plugged in / in the cradle.

If they could add something personally useful it would be more attractive. I wouldn't mind having this chip if they also added a CO sensor, maybe a smoke sensor or a general 'air quality' (CO2? ozone?) indicator that could be read directly from the phone. I also wouldn't mind having one on my car, and able to command the hvac system (i.e. change to inside air, or modify fan speed).

DHS says Cell-All will operate only on an opt-in basis and will transmit data anonymously.
Right, because the DHS has such a fine track record of opt-in, anonymous data, and not using it for other purposes. While they might have opt-in it will be buried under pages of the cellphone contract or settings and will be on by default requiring the user to spend a few hours figuring out where it is hidden to turn it off. Anonymous transmission, maybe anonymous by the fact it relays cell tower coordinates with an identifier number through which they can gain the personal information "only" by asking the cell provider.

My question is, how often are dangerous chemicals released in the air for this to be needed? Places which handle dangerous chemicals already have detection systems in place, it's not often you hear of a city being evacuated because of some sort of toxic accident. Or is it to help combat terrorism? It sounds to me like it's a location based detection system which will be [ab]used to detect drugs and other activities instead of to "protect the public".

Marketing 101, call it what everyone wants to hear and use an asterisk to explain that by that you mean the opposite. Redesign a product with cheaper more fragile parts? call it NEW and IMPROVED!. They'll call it opt-in because you could just not have a phone and then you wouldn't be included. It's a butchery of the language only a weasel covered in slime would use, but we're combining DHS and a telecommunications company, so it would hardly be surprising.

Also known as cocaine. Or tetrahydrocannabinol, diacetylmorphine, methamphetamine or similar killers of children. What, don't you want your cellphone to be used to sniff out the murderers of children? What kind of monster are you?

By that definition we need a chip to sniff out corrupt and psychopathic politicians/businessmen. You know, the ones who have no problem sending other peoples kids to die in unwanted wars while they and their friends keep filling their bank accounts.

You're touching on the hidden agenda, I think. This kind of technology would also be useful for detecting the use of all sorts of illicit substances. And they'll know which other phones were there, or were nearby recently, complete with GPS data.

I don't genuinely fear the end of marijuana, but actually tobacco. City of New York bans it everywhere, period, and the chemical sensors issue tickets automagically.

Your buddies and you are drinking, someone farts... phone says it's deadly
There's a million ways this can be used with house hold chemicals brought to school to get out of a test
You notice a good looking girl (or guy) on the street about to go into a store. You go over to her, and say: "WAIT!, my phone says this place is deadly... How bout you come to lunch with me, it's much safer."

Pfft. No one will trust the results from a single $1 sensor. However... 20 or 30 of them alarming at once followed by finding 20 or 30 casualties at the location will make a pretty compelling case that there's toxic agent present.

Haha, I thought the goal was to prevent death, I mean currently the person who drops dead is our sensor, and these 1$ things are meant to replace the poor dead person.
However, I do see your point. With more alarms comes more validity. But the amount of the phones that will have this feature and with harmful chemicals and groups of 20-30 people being around them, a rare occurrence (at least I assume), I can't really see these sensors being really more than a joke in all cases but the most extreme... and eve

You've got to think like a paranoid government agency tasked with either preventing terrorist attacks or determining the facts afterwards (should they fail to prevent it in the first place). Minimizing the effects of an attack falls under prevention, fwiw. Yes, there are portable devices that are much more reliable and sensitive, which can be brought to bear. The early warning is useful though.

Picture: You're the first responders, arriving on a scene with 20 or 30 people passed out on the floor. It wou

Yes, because when 20 or 30 people are keeling over clutching their throats and loudly choking, you'll be checking your "you have new toxic warnings messages" on your cell phone, and possibly wondering if your sensor is defective.

Obviously I'm not the only one utterly convinced that the optional part is a complete sham.
What a thin cover story for an attempt to embed bomb sniffing devices in something everyone carries, in the name of greater security.
Folks at a rocketry convention would see men in black in no time flat if they 'forgot' to register their event with the monitors.
1986.

This seems oddly familiar to Batman: Dark Knight. Using cell phones to collect data points throughout a city to find the culprit (the Joker / toxic chemicals). Ultimately, in the movie, there were great concerns about privacy and use of the technology. The safety net here "Cell-All will operate only on an opt-in basis and will transmit data anonymously" seems nice on paper, but I'm sure those in a position to use it will feel the pressure to exploit the technology for more.

"Cell-All will operate only on an opt-in basis and will transmit data anonymously"

Buwahahhahaahahaaa, Yeah, I'm sure that's how it will start. But as with any "Security" program IT WILL result in mission creep. Airport searches, criminal activity databases, fingerprint databases, DNA databases, if there is one thing that our government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt it is that systems initially used to track/monitor for "bad" people/things will eventually be used to track/monitor everyone/everything. Airport searches initially only searched for things capable of commandeering/damaging the plane, now ANY form of contraband is searched for, drugs, kiddy porn, "Suspicious" money, even "objectionable" reading material has been screened. Wasn't there even a incident a while back where a cargo tracking system was used to track law abiding people instead? I see this particular system eventually used to search for meth labs, then used to get search warrants for houses where any illicit chemicals are detected. It'll eventually get so bad that setting off too many firecrackers or messing around with a home chemistry set/bioreactor (homemade fuel) will result in a SWAT team coming through your door, after all you could be a terrorist building a bomb.

A chip costing less than a dollar would be embedded in cell phones and programmed to either alert the cell phone carrier to the presence of toxic chemicals in the air, and/or a central station that can monitor how many alerts in an area are being received

And how about alerting the user that paid for the phone in the first place? I want flashing red-on-yellow big letters that say, RUN FOR YOUR LIFE! With a loud siren sound too.

I used to work in a genetics lab, and this is a terrifying thought. Imagine 20 lab techs working with chemicals in the same room, easily enough to set off the "low levels indicating danger and not a drill" alarm. Assuming that this is set to detect chemicals that are not yet at dangerous levels, merely anomalous levels, how do they propose to avoid raiding GlaxoSmithKline on a daily basis?

The false alarms will be tremendous. How about landscapers and farmers, or even joe homeowner spraying some weeds around his driveway? Modern technological life has a ton of chemicals associated with it. Use some bleach on your kitchen counter, or in the laundry, stuff like that.

There are potential, non-political-control-through-fear uses for this. Just about every environmental scientist would be thrilled to see the kind of fine grained data such a huge network could produce. Of course, the potential for political abuse is huge. I think a project like this could really benefit from open development.

I have a solution to our energy crisis - connect a generator to George Orwell.

HE only imagined the telescreen being able to hear and see you - not smell you and determine you had committed foodcrime by examining your flatulence.

And of course, if youa) stand near somebody smoking (ANYTHING)b) stand near a barbecuec) stand downwind of somebody fertilizing their yard (OMFG NITROGEN COMPOUNDS! TERRRRRRORRRRRRISTS!)d) be in a room where somebody is using a non-approved substanceYou will be a suspect.

If these chips are so wonderful, why not make them into self-contained modules and locate them throughout our cities, right along with the cameras, microphones, gun-shot detectors, radar units, tire-pressure monitor transponders, and so on.

If these chips are so wonderful, why not make them into self-contained modules and locate them throughout our cities

The EPA has planted those for DECADES as revenue generators. Essentially the chemical plant equivalent of a red light camera. Go to your nearest chemical plant, look to prevailing downwind direction (assuming there is a prevailing wind direction in your geography) and locate a "one car sized" separately fenced in area with a pickup truck load of sensing gear, and power and phone lines feeding it, and plenty of no trespassing signs and locks. Also if you search 2600 or maybe Phrack from the 80s, you'll find an ancient article on dialing in and reading the results. This is old stuff, very old.

The idea is not a million miles removed from the folding@home and seti programs. Why build a supercomputer you can't afford when you can utalize existing hardware?

Why install a dense and costly sensor grid when you can disribute the sensor in a much cheaper package? You could of course install countless sensors with their own battery pack, processing power and communication gear, OR you could hitch them to existing gear that is by its nature widely distrubuted.

And with it, you could create a grid that reaches almost anywhere to measure air quality. I am pretty sure there are scientists who have a wet dream thinking of a very dense air measurment grid in urban areas.

Sure, privacy could be an issue...

Oh wait, no it isn't. If you got a phone, "they" can track you already. No special sniffer needed. How many of the privacy nutters got a phone? Your secret overlords thank you for carrying your tracker.

So, no privacy issue is added except perhaps "they" being able to tell you farted.

The idea is very close to using cellphones to track traffic jams. Lots of phone signals not moving? Traffic jam. Why not? The alternative is installing lots and lots of camera's.

Yeah, the tech would need good laws to regulate it, but if done right, it could create a very powerful tool for having a dense sensor grid at marginal costs.

We in the west enjoy excellent weather forcasts thanks to a dense grid of weather station, many of which are operated by amateurs. This could do the same for monitoring air quality with a hundred times refinement. An intresting idea, once you get beyond the knee jerk privacy reaction which anybody with a cellphone has already accepted. Allthough I wouldn't put it behind the average privacy nutter to wrap his cellphone in tinfoil, just in case.

because what's not cool about having a sensor in my phone capable of detecting many different chemicals that I can opt out on not sending data to the government? Given that there was a recent fluorine leak on my campus(no one was hurt or injured, though someone did gain the nickname of fluorine boy), these might be useful.
Also, given that the chips will cost next to nothing and will be produced in high quantities, they could become as ubiquitous as accelerometers are today. Just imagine all the cool thing

> Something like "Opt-in cellphone data shows that pesticide levels are higher> than we initial thought in homes" or "people who were around this brand of> housepaint were more likely to develop cancer."

These are simple sensors for specific chemicals, not high-sensitivity combination gas chromatograph/mass spctrometers. There will be a short list of specific chemicals that they will detect at high levels. They are not going to measure pesticide levels or identify paint brands.

Does the GPS chip actually constantly transmit? I was under the impression that unless you're running one of those tracking apps that you had to actually be in a voice call for the GPS chip to transmit the location. If this is the case sure you can't disable the "Only 911" on most phones but you could just not answer, their only fall back would be to track you on tower triangulation, which is I beleive an exaustive and time consuming process if you want more than a few miles locational accuracy.

Depends. The receiver transmits nothing on its own, but the cellular network can poll it for location data. That's how they use it to find people in trouble, etc.

It appears they failed to account for the fact that these sensors will be embedded in a device with a case of plastic made in China. Any time the phone gets warm it's going to outgas right into the sensor and alarm.

The goal of a terrorist is to terrorize their enemies. Were this to be implemented as described - a small sensor in millions of cell phones scattered across the country, alerting a central monitoring station - they've made the job of the terrorists much easier. Rather than trigger a device to release posion, explosions, etc., now all a terrorist need do is disperse sufficient amounts of "poisons" to trigger detection and cause panic...

And once the terrorists cause the Gov't to "cry Wolf" too many times, the